C.C. CASE NO. 34 OF 2009

Roghu Nath Chakraborty

Bhadreswar Tala Lane,

P.O. & P.S.Bhadreswar,

Dist. Hooghly ….Complainant

-Vs-

1) M/s Priyanka Communication

G.T.Road Bhadreswar,

2) Mr.Pankaj Sengupta,

TATA Teleservice Ltd.

C/0 Videsh Sanchar Bhavan,

1/18, C.I.T.Scheme, VIIM

Kolkata-54.



Present : Shri D.K.Basu, President

Sri S.Basu, Member

Date of delivery of judgement – 6th Nov.2009



11. The fact of the complainant’s case in brief is as follows :

The complainant Raghunath Chakraborty has filed this case against Op no.1 M/s Priyanka Communication and Op no.2 Mr.Pankaj Sengupta alleging that the complainant received a TATA Indicom mobile connection no.9231626196 from M/s Priyanka Communication on 13.12.2005. Pursuant to the terms and conditions offered by the said company through SMS, he recharged Rs.2008/- vide transfer ID no. 8763361 dated 12.11.2007 with unlimited talk time for 2008 days i.e. till the year 2013. On 13.12.2008 he came to know that the tariff has been changed . Without prior intimation to the customer the company cannot alter the terms and conditions. He made several correspondences with the authority but no reply has since been received. By filing the instant case he has prayed for fixation of unrevised call rate till dissolution of the contract of 2008 days i.e. till the year 2013, Rs.2000/- as litigation cost , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and other relief.

The OP no.1 inspite of receipt of notice does not turn up.

The Op no.2 Mr.Pankaj Sengupta, Tata Teleservice Ltd has contested this case by filing a written version denying the material averment of the complaint contending inter alia that the complainant being satisfied with the terms and conditions put his signature on the customer application form . One of the salient features of those terms and condition is that Tata Teleservice Ltd. reserves the right to withdraw and /or alter any of the terms and conditions of the offer from time to time without notice. Thus, the complainant agreed and switched over to another scheme when the said Opp.party first changed some of its terms and conditions. The whole disputes arose when the opposite party made a slight change in the conditions of free calling from TATA to TATA. It was observed that a year after the launch of the offer (in December 2008) subscribers who were latched on to this plan were still paying Rs.3/- per minute to make STD calls and Rs.2/- per minute to make local calls. In the one year since the scheme was launched , industry rates and tariff have become most competitive and prices have been moved down. Accordingly, the company provided relief to the subscriber with the revision the case of Rs.1.50 per minute for STD call (50% reduction) and Rs.0.50 per minute to make local calls (75% reduction). Due to drastic tariff card heavy financial cost has to face and it was decided to charge a nominal fee of Rs.51/- per month for free TATA to TATA call by the subscriber. The customers who do not have heavy calling on TATA to TATA front the company have made alternative offer wherein they will continue to have free TATA to TATA calling for 600 minutes per month (while enjoying the benefit of Re.0.50 wherein they will continue to have free TATA to TATA calling for 600 minutes per month (while enjoying the benefit of Re.0.50 per minute for local call and Rs.1.50 per minute for STD calls). They noticed that some small section of customers was abusing the free TATA to TATA service offer causing clogging up the net work and leading to depreciation of service level for their discerning subscribers. It is further stated that there was no negligence or deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.

1. Whether there cause any deficiency in service on the part of OP ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

FINDINGS WITH REASONS:

The learned lawyer of the complainant has argued that it is admitted fact that he purchased the mobile set from TATA Tele Service on 13.12.2005 from M/s Priyanka Communication (OP no.1) on the terms and conditions laid down thereon whereon he was allowed unlimited talk time for 2008 days i.e. Till the till the year of 2013. But the Op no.2 without any notice of the complainant has changed the tariff which he cannot do as per terms and conditions within the year 2013. Hence by filing the instant case he has prayed the reliefs embodied in the complaint.

The learned lawyer of the Op has admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile from Op no.2 in which the unlimited talk time was allowed till the year 2013. He has further submitted that pursuant to the terms and conditions as embodied in paragraph 3 , overleaf of the form signed by the complainant reflects that TATA Teleservices has the right to alter/amend the terms and conditions or any of them . Knowing the terms and conditions the complainant put his signature on the form. Accordingly, the TATA Teleservice has the right to amend the terms and conditions without giving notice to the complainant /consumer. Thus, by changing the tariffs the OP no.2 has not committed any deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.



It is admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer under the Op no.1 and 2. It is also admitted fact that the complainant obtained the TATA mobile and the service rendered by TATA Teleservice by putting the signature on the prescribed form, the xerox copy of which has been filed by the Op no.2. The terms and conditions as enumerated in item 3 , on the overleaf of the said form in clause (f) embodied therein as follows :

“TTL reserves the right to amend these terms and conditions (or any of them) and /or to separately specify additional conditions from time to time at its sole discretion without providing any notice to the consumer”.

Item no.3 Clause (f) of Terms and conditions on the overleaf of the form signed by the complainant reveals that the Op no.2 reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions or to modify the same or any of them without notice of the consumer.The complainant by putting his signature on the form has admitted to comply and bound himself by the terms and conditions as laid down thereon. Thus, by altering the terms and conditions as enumerated in the complaint, the Op no.2 has not committed any deficiency in service or has not violated the terms and conditions as embodied therein.

In view of the above findings we are of opinion that the Op no.2, the contesting party has not violated the terms and conditions as depicted in the form and thereby has not caused any deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.

The points are accordingly satisfied.

Hence ordered

That the instant case is dismissed on contest against the Op no.2 and exparte against the Op no.1 without any cost.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 5 months 19 days. The delay in disposing of the case is caused due to the post of President remained vacant for a considerable period.

Dictated and corrected by me